Thanks. I will try to work on the problem. Between you and me, I had the misfortune of working with a pack of idiots inadvertently, although I also connected with some of the best. But anyway, the idiocy set me back a decade in terms of research. I suppose I also have to say that my theories about the precise phase I was at sexually did not help either, and because of the stupidity of contemporary sexual mores you can get a lot of problems, since people just will not leave you alone in your private sphere when you want to work without interference. There were just a few personal issues I did not anticipate correctly, bit of human error. All in all, I often feel hopeless and think I just don't care anymore. But this is an extremely dangerous sentiment, and, I ought really to work towards being more responsible and just avoid all the idiots. So anyway I will try to tackle the problem in the future.
J. ----- Original Message ----- From: "joanna bujes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The relationship between capital accumulation, economic growth, and equilibrium > I would be interested in seeing the ideas/assertions in this piece being > applied to the process of globalization (privatization of international > commons) and the controversy about whether 1) it is necessary and why 2) > it does (not) result in any gain for the working class. > > Joanna > > Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > > >Rakesh, you wrote: > > > >"Marx's reproduction schema do not show even the possibility of > >capitalism as an intrinsically stable dynamical system. How could > >they? They assume a constant OCC, fixed values, annual turnover, > >exchange at value (rather than price of production)? They are too far > >removed from the reality of an actual capitalist system to lay bare > >its laws of motion." > > > >Correct. I think that above all, Marx wanted to show in the second volume > >"how it is possible" for Capital to dominate the entire economic life of an > >economic community, and internalise more and more of the conditions for its > >own economic reproduction (cf. Roman Rosdolsky, The Making of Marx's > >Capital). In other words, how the relationships, which he had analysed at > >the level of the enterprise and the labour process in the first volume, > >asserted themselves at the level of social production as a whole, the > >interactions between enterprises. The subtitle of the second volume is, in > >fact called "the process of the circulation of capital" and not, for > >example, "the process whereby Capital finds its equilibrium" or "the process > >by which Capital ensures economic growth". > > > >Marx is not trying to find the necessary conditions for total supply and > >total demand to balance, he is rather seeking to specify the necessary > >conditions for the accumulation of Capital, when the circulation of money > >and commodities (commercial trade) invade an entire economic community, > >rather than exist merely at the boundaries of an economic community, as > >happened for most of the economic history of trade. Precisely because any > >economic community is faced with the necessity of producing specific types > >of use-values (in the first instance, means of production and means of > >consumption), Marx is investigating how Capital modifies and regulates that > >process. > > > >A good discussion of the reproduction schemes is also provided by Edward > >Chilcote, see > >www.gre.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt/files/97Chilcote.rtf+Chilcote+reproduction+scheme s > >&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8 > > > >I think that the best way to understand the connection between "economic > >growth" and "capital accumulation" in Marx's theory is to say that economic > >growth IS CONDITIONAL on capital accumulation, capital accumulation is the > >sine qua non, the necessary condition. This formula, or something like this, > >I think is apposite, because it shows that "economic growth" and "capital > >accumulation" are not at all the same thing, they are different things. You > >can have relatively slow growth in real production, and relatively fast > >capital accumulation, precisely because the capitalist mode of production is > >a "contradictory unity of the production process and the circulation > >process", as Marx himself says repeatedly. With the aid of credit and > >monetary manipulations, and given a high productive capacity (such that a > >smaller proportion of the workforce produces a larger physical output), > >circulation processes can become semi-autonomous from production processes. > > > >The implication of this is as follows: Marx describes the basic forms of > >capital as "production capital", "money capital" and "commodity capital", > >but it may be that an increasing proportion of capital is tied up in money > >capital and commodity capital, and Marx says, that this is ultimately purely > >a question of relative profitability and profit expectations. Rosa Luxemburg > >said quite correctly that under capitalism, simple economic reproduction is > >conditional on expanded reproduction, and that the implication of this is, > >that capitalism requires a continual expansion of the market, and it is in > >this expansion of the market that she sees the root cause of imperialism. > >But this side-steps the question: "market for what, exactly" ? A market for > >money capital, commodity capital, or production capital ? > > > >In fact, this issue is crucial to understanding what has happened in the > >world economy, where the volume of annual world trade exceeds the volume of > >"new valued added", and a gigantic mass of capital is tied up in monetary > >speculation. When Harrod and Domar tried to derive the conditions for a > >"steady economic growth path" in the 1950s and 1960s, they do not really > >understand this, because growth in real output and capital accumulation are > >really separate questions, yet bourgeois economics is unable to treat them > >as separate questions, because it fails to understand, or hides, the social > >framework within which these social processes occur. The objective of the > >owner of capital is not to raise output as such, but to raise output to make > >more money, and if he cannot make more money from that, he does not raise > >output, but he takes his money somewhere else, where he can make more money. > > > >This insight enables us to specify another observation: the imperative of > >the capitalist mode of production is not the maximal expansion of the > >physical surplus product as such, but the maximal expansion of > >surplus-value. Physical surplus is expanded only if surplus-value expands, > >the latter is the incentive for the former. But the physical surplus product > >might in fact decline, while the total surplus-value increases within > >certain limits (this is something which you can model mathematically quite > >easily, by demonstrating the importance of temporal-spatial displacement > >through credit and foreign trade, and the appropriation of income from the > >working class when economic growth declines). When Piero Sraffa talks about > >a "physical surplus", he just confuses this issue, because he fails to grasp > >the "surplus" as a purely relative, social category subject to class > >relations, such that financial claims to a share of the social product are > >determined by the power relationships between social classes, which are > >founded in production, in production relations, in the private ownership of > >assets. It is never the case that the product is just produced, and then > >shared out. The share-out is already determined in production itself, by the > >private property relations involved. > > > >All of this shows that "equilibrium" has nothing to do with the "price > >mechanism" as such, but rather with the ownership of private property, and > >the necessity to produce the means of life and the tools & technology that > >make life possible. Prices merely mediate the basic relationships which must > >exist for society to survive and grow (the necessary proportions of > >production, distribution, circulation and consumption). It is therefore a > >theoretical fallacy to suggest that "the economy" constitutes the > >equilibrium, because in so doing, we disappear the social relations which > >constitute this equilibrium, which is at most only a "relative social > >stability". Prices and values are merely the means by which we can reveal > >what those social relations are. For Marx, social order and social change > >are constituted by the mode of production itself, a specific articulation of > >forces of production (lincluding labour-power) and relations of production. > >Anything else is economic determinism. > > > >The overall purpose of Marx's analysis of capitalism is to reveal the social > >nature of capitalism, in order to make a contribution to the problem of > >understanding the way in which it can be superseded by socialism. His > >discussion of the capitalist regulation and modification of necessary > >relationships required for the production of means of production and means > >of consumption to balance out is part of that. But if the problem of > >equilibrium cannot even be understood correctly for what it is, it is > >impossible to understand how socialism could emerge either. > > > >It is not accidental, by the way, that Marx doesn't consider production > >prices in the second volume, because production prices constitute precisely > >the link between production and circulation. The very concept of "cost price > >+ average profit" already suggests that. > > > >Jurriaan > > > > > > > > > >
